Limit of the #become:
Locked
 
|
Hi guys. I noticed that there is a limit in the number of objects you can become. In my case, I am becoming 2312157 objects. So..I don't expect that the become works. I imagine that it was not designed for so many objects in mind ;)
However, what I would really understand is where is the limitation and the reason. And of course, if someone already knows which is the real number limit. Otherwise, I will do a kind of binary search and discover it. If you want to reproduce it: | dict | dict := Dictionary new. 2312157 timesRepeat: [ dict at: Object new put: Object new ]. 3 timesRepeat: [Smalltalk garbageCollect]. dict keys elementsForwardIdentityTo: dict values. throws a #primitiveFailed. Thanks, -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com |
Re: Limit of the #become:
|
|
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi guys. I noticed that there is a limit in the number of objects you can become. In my case, I am becoming 2312157 objects. So..I don't expect that the become works. I imagine that it was not designed for so many objects in mind ;) Of course the following works correctly: | dict tmp | dict := Dictionary new. 2312157 timesRepeat: [dict at: Object new put: Object new]. 3 timesRepeat: [Smalltalk garbageCollect]. dict associations groupsOf: 50000 atATimeDo: [:each | tmp := Dictionary withAll: each. tmp keys elementsForwardIdentityTo: tmp values ] So... indeed, there seems to be a limit with the amount of objects.
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mariano Martinez Peck
Mariano,
In fact, presently use of become is not considered good OOP so at first my humble suggestion is you consider revising the whole architecture in order to understand why you need such a thing and find a better [design] pattern. HTH -- Cesar Rabak Em 04/04/2012 12:32, Mariano Martinez Peck < [hidden email] > escreveu: > Hi guys. I noticed that there is a limit in the number of objects > you can become. In my case, I am becoming 2312157 objects. So..I > don't expect that the become works. I imagine that it was not > designed for so many objects in mind ;) > However, what I would really understand is where is the limitation > and the reason. And of course, if someone already knows which is > the real number limit. Otherwise, I will do a kind of binary search > and discover it. > If you want to reproduce it: > | dict | > dict := Dictionary new. > 2312157 timesRepeat: [ dict at: Object new put: Object new ]. > 3 timesRepeat: [Smalltalk garbageCollect]. > dict keys elementsForwardIdentityTo: dict values. > > throws a #primitiveFailed. > > Thanks, |
|
|
On 4 April 2012 23:25, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Mariano, > > In fact, presently use of become is not considered good OOP so at first > my humble suggestion is you consider revising the whole architecture > in order to understand why you need such a thing and find a better > [design] pattern. > there is no other way to represent an object by proxy, which is not yet in memory, but loaded on demand. otherwise you will be forced to make an outer object (which refers to a proxy), to know it and replace a reference to it with another object. > HTH > > -- > Cesar Rabak > > > Em 04/04/2012 12:32, Mariano Martinez Peck < [hidden email] > escreveu: > >> Hi guys. I noticed that there is a limit in the number of objects >> you can become. In my case, I am becoming 2312157 objects. So..I >> don't expect that the become works. I imagine that it was not >> designed for so many objects in mind ;) >> However, what I would really understand is where is the limitation >> and the reason. And of course, if someone already knows which is >> the real number limit. Otherwise, I will do a kind of binary search >> and discover it. >> If you want to reproduce it: >> | dict | >> dict := Dictionary new. >> 2312157 timesRepeat: [ dict at: Object new put: Object new ]. >> 3 timesRepeat: [Smalltalk garbageCollect]. >> dict keys elementsForwardIdentityTo: dict values. >> >> throws a #primitiveFailed. >> >> Thanks, > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko. |
|
|
On 4 April 2012 22:32, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 4 April 2012 23:25, <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Mariano, >> >> In fact, presently use of become is not considered good OOP so at first >> my humble suggestion is you consider revising the whole architecture >> in order to understand why you need such a thing and find a better >> [design] pattern. >> > > there is no other way to represent an object by proxy, which is not > yet in memory, but loaded on demand. > otherwise you will be forced to make an outer object (which refers to > a proxy), to know it > and replace a reference to it with another object. And this seems like precisely one of those times you really do want to reach into the magic toolbox for #become:. Sometimes you really do need it. frank >> HTH >> >> -- >> Cesar Rabak >> >> >> Em 04/04/2012 12:32, Mariano Martinez Peck < [hidden email] > escreveu: >> >>> Hi guys. I noticed that there is a limit in the number of objects >>> you can become. In my case, I am becoming 2312157 objects. So..I >>> don't expect that the become works. I imagine that it was not >>> designed for so many objects in mind ;) >>> However, what I would really understand is where is the limitation >>> and the reason. And of course, if someone already knows which is >>> the real number limit. Otherwise, I will do a kind of binary search >>> and discover it. >>> If you want to reproduce it: >>> | dict | >>> dict := Dictionary new. >>> 2312157 timesRepeat: [ dict at: Object new put: Object new ]. >>> 3 timesRepeat: [Smalltalk garbageCollect]. >>> dict keys elementsForwardIdentityTo: dict values. >>> >>> throws a #primitiveFailed. >>> >>> Thanks, >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > |
|
|
+ 1
>>> >>> In fact, presently use of become is not considered good OOP so at first >>> my humble suggestion is you consider revising the whole architecture >>> in order to understand why you need such a thing and find a better >>> [design] pattern. >>> >> >> there is no other way to represent an object by proxy, which is not >> yet in memory, but loaded on demand. >> otherwise you will be forced to make an outer object (which refers to >> a proxy), to know it >> and replace a reference to it with another object. > > And this seems like precisely one of those times you really do want to > reach into the magic toolbox for #become:. Sometimes you really do > need it. |
Re: Limit of the #become:
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar-3
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks Carlos for the advice. Since Igor knows what I am doing, he answered for me ;) So yes....I am swappout graphs between primary and secondary memory and there are objects that I need to become to proxies and vice-versa. This is not an app what I am doing, but a kind of hacky stuff implemented at the object side. Cheers
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |